[Internal-cg] Way forward/Proposal to extend the ICG charter

[Mueller, Milton L]

Daniel is assuming that we need to modify our charter to ensure that the proposal is complete. I don't think that is a correct assumption. If you look at the charter it does allow us to oversee certain aspects of implementation

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> I remain extremely skeptical about this for the reasons I have explained
> earlier. Those in favor should propose concrete language for a revised charter.
> This language should describe and limit the proposed purview and actions of
> the group as well as specify the point in time when this group will disband.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> On 8.10.15 13:13 , Narelle Clark wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> > in our face to face meeting in LA, we decided to defer the discussion
> > regarding what role - if any - the ICG should play during the
> > implementation phase of the transition. Alissa also kicked off the
> > discussion on the list. Here are some of my thoughts to guide us
> > through to Dublin.
> >
> > In the comments submitted to the ICG, the Internet Society pointed out:
> >
> > "We would like to draw attention to the need for timely resolution of
> > outstanding issues with regards to the implementation of the various
> > processes, mechanisms and rules that relate to IANA. Details related
> > to the structure of the new Post-Transition IANA (PTI) and the various
> > bodies supporting it (e.g. CSC, IFR, etc.), implementation aspects of
> > the CCWG proposal (as it relates to IANA), a plan to successfully
> > conclude the SLAs, and a resolution of IANA-related intellectual
> > property rights have yet to be fully fleshed out. We urge the
> > community to determine:
> >
> > *         How these implementation details will be addressed in a timely
> > fashion to the satisfaction of all communities in a way that continues
> > to meet the principles set forth by NTIA; and,
> >
> > *         How all the communities will remain involved in the
> > implementation of the new structure in an appropriate manner."
> >
> > There is no denying the fact that a major part of the transition is
> > implementation. I would like to argue that a sound transition
> > implementation process is actually as important as having a complete
> > and robust proposal. At this stage I do not believe we have one.
> >
> > A major part of the transition is oversight: the system that
> > ultimately replaces the oversight of the US government. I think we all
> > agree that as a group we are responsible for ensuring that the IANA
> > functions continue to operate in a reliable, stable and predictable
> > way. This means a design that is able to deliver and meet the
> > expectations and needs of the IANA customers. I do not believe that
> > this is achieved simply by saying that we have a full proposal, when
> > there is clearly a gap arising from the status of the accountability model.
> >
> > As this group has repeatedly discussed, what the current proposal
> > foresees is that, for the purposes of the IETF and the RIRs, ICANN
> > will continue to operate as the IFO; ICANN, would therefore
> > subcontract this responsibility to a new PTI. The names community will
> > contract directly with PTI. So, in effect, PTI will be the entity
> > responsible for maintaining and operating the IANA functions. PTI,
> > however, is a new entity that will have to be established from scratch.
> >
> > And here is the gap.
> >
> > Were the US government to sign off on the transition and with the
> > various groups - IANAPlan, CRISP and CWG (the latter disbanded) - who
> > will make sure that the setting up of PTI and the various supporting
> > bodies is done in a manner that ensures the stability of the system?
> > How can we - as the Internet community - ensure that the new system
> > supports the ongoing performance of IANA?
> >
> > I think that there is a role for us. This body is the only one
> > currently in existence that is fully representative of the communities
> > and one that would not have the learning curve.
> >
> > We all have a vested interest in ensuring that IANA continues to
> > operate the way it does today - i.e. without any interruptions or
> > issues of stability. I am not suggesting that we should micromanage
> > the implementation process - rather that we could perhaps take the
> > role of some sort of an advisory body that will meet and intervene if
> > and when it considers that the implementation details fail to meet the
> > standards of performance expected for IANA. Indeed, to provide a form of
> oversight.
> >
> > I am aware that this raises issues with our charter, however, given
> > how lightweight the approach I am suggesting should be, this would
> > require nothing more than a minor adjustment. This would only need to
> > be in place until such time as PTI exists and back-to-back contracts
> > (between the IETF, RIRs, ICANN and PTI) are in place.
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course, the community would need to be in support of such a thing,
> > and a period of public comment would be called for.
> >
> > The situation at present is to my mind more than a little serious. I
> > would therefore like to ask you to consider this in good faith.
> >
> > What I am suggesting is a very light weight and high level engagement
> > plan that will allow us to see through this transition. We all know
> > just how important this is, and the need for careful, cross-community
> > oversight until the entire system is in place.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> >
> >
> > Narelle
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Narelle Clark
> > Director of Operations - Deputy CEO
> > *Australian Communications *
> >
> > *Consumer Action Network*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org